LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[New Frenco Empire]

We're not talking about homosexuality itself but the right of people who are homosexual to have the benefits and protections under the law that their heterosexual fellow citizens have, including the right to marry the person of their choice. George Washington probably didn't think women should vote or that slavery was necessarily a bad thing. He also thought, I imagine, that having your doctor draw a pint of your blood when you were sick was a good thing. Times change, people and nations evolve in their thoughts and actions. We should draw up our laws for the modern day and not wonder what George Washington would think.

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both God's sight, George Washington's sight, the sight of most Americans, the sight of most state constitutions, the sight of most state laws, and the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

[Pandeeria]

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both God's sight, George Washington's sight, the sight of most Americans, the sight of most state constitutions, the sight of most state laws, and the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Wait, we actually made treaties with the Ottomans?

[Lalaki]

We're not talking about homosexuality itself but the right of people who are homosexual to have the benefits and protections under the law that their heterosexual fellow citizens have, including the right to marry the person of their choice. George Washington probably didn't think women should vote or that slavery was necessarily a bad thing. He also thought, I imagine, that having your doctor draw a pint of your blood when you were sick was a good thing. Times change, people and nations evolve in their thoughts and actions. We should draw up our laws for the modern day and not wonder what George Washington would think.

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both (1) God's sight, (2) George Washington's sight, (3) the sight of most Americans, (4) the sight of most state constitutions, (5) the sight of most state laws, (6) and the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff.

1. Not everyone follows the same religion.
2. George Washington also owned other human beings. I'm not saying he was a bad person, considering the cultural norms of the time, but he is by no means a role model for modern views.
3. Not true. The majority of Americans (http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/06/ ... nd-family/ and http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-m ... -high.aspx) support gay marriage.
4. Sodomy laws were struck down nationwide in 2003, and many courts are starting overturn same-sex marriage bans.
5. Same point as #4.
6. Not everyone follows the same religion.

There is no empirical evidence the founding fathers were smarter compared to today's generation. Plus, they didn't model this nation on Christian principles. Many of them were deists, fearing a mixture of religion and government.

[MERIZoC]

We're not talking about homosexuality itself but the right of people who are homosexual to have the benefits and protections under the law that their heterosexual fellow citizens have, including the right to marry the person of their choice. George Washington probably didn't think women should vote or that slavery was necessarily a bad thing. He also thought, I imagine, that having your doctor draw a pint of your blood when you were sick was a good thing. Times change, people and nations evolve in their thoughts and actions. We should draw up our laws for the modern day and not wonder what George Washington would think.

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both
1: God's sight,
2: George Washington's sight,
3: the sight of most Americans,
4: the sight of most state constitutions, the sight of most state laws, and the sight of most
5: Christians and people of faith in general.

6: The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses.
7: They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles.

1: Doesn't matter
2: Doesn't matter
3: Wrong
4: Wong
5: Doesn't matter. Our laws are based on what the American people want, not what the religious people of the world want.
6: I doubt that.
7: Wrong.

[Threlizdun]

We're not talking about homosexuality itself but the right of people who are homosexual to have the benefits and protections under the law that their heterosexual fellow citizens have, including the right to marry the person of their choice. George Washington probably didn't think women should vote or that slavery was necessarily a bad thing. He also thought, I imagine, that having your doctor draw a pint of your blood when you were sick was a good thing. Times change, people and nations evolve in their thoughts and actions. We should draw up our laws for the modern day and not wonder what George Washington would think.

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both God's sight, George Washington's sight, the sight of most Americans, the sight of most state constitutions, the sight of most state laws, and the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

It is not condemned by the bible, the founding fathers created a constitution specifically to accommodate for change in values, the fourteenth amendment prohibits unequal treatment of citizens before the law and thus invalidates prohibitions on same-sex marriage, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the human right to marry, and the majority of people are in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.

The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

The founding fathers were largely condemned as heretics at their time and borrowed more heavily from deist and pagan traditions with their talk of "natures god". Some of them even were prone to harshly criticize Christianity, Jefferson especially. We were not founded on Christianity; we were founded on classical liberalism

I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff.

Then you should support slavery and oppose the right of women to vote.

[Benuty]

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both (1) God's sight, (2) George Washington's sight, (3) the sight of most Americans, (4) the sight of most state constitutions, (5) the sight of most state laws, (6) and the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff.

1. Not everyone follows the same religion.
2. George Washington also owned other human beings. I'm not saying he was a bad person, considering the cultural norms of the time, but he is by no means a role model for modern views.
3. Not true. The majority of Americans (http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/06/ ... nd-family/ and http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-m ... -high.aspx) support gay marriage.
4. Sodomy laws were struck down nationwide in 2003, and many courts are starting overturn same-sex marriage bans.
5. Same point as #4.
6. Not everyone follows the same religion.

There is no empirical evidence the founding fathers were smarter compared to today's generation. Plus, they didn't model this nation on Christian principles. Many of them were deists, fearing a mixture of religion and government.

2003....what the hell?
I thought they got rid of them even earlier....wow.

[Pandeeria]

We're not talking about homosexuality itself but the right of people who are homosexual to have the benefits and protections under the law that their heterosexual fellow citizens have, including the right to marry the person of their choice. George Washington probably didn't think women should vote or that slavery was necessarily a bad thing. He also thought, I imagine, that having your doctor draw a pint of your blood when you were sick was a good thing. Times change, people and nations evolve in their thoughts and actions. We should draw up our laws for the modern day and not wonder what George Washington would think.

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both God's sight, George Washington's sight, the sight of most Americans, the sight of most state constitutions, the sight of most state laws, and the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff.

I don't care about Christianity. We're a secular nation. Learn to represent everyone equally and not to force on your religion.

I don't care about state's constitutions. While I respect them as our constitution wanted that is much prefer a unitary state.

George Washington doesn't matter when it comes to gay marriage. That was the 1700's. We're in 2014, stop clinging to barbaric traditions that have no place in a free and just society, and allow people equal freedoms. It's not difficult.

[Lalaki]

1. Not everyone follows the same religion.
2. George Washington also owned other human beings. I'm not saying he was a bad person, considering the cultural norms of the time, but he is by no means a role model for modern views.
3. Not true. The majority of Americans (http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/06/ ... nd-family/ and http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-m ... -high.aspx) support gay marriage.
4. Sodomy laws were struck down nationwide in 2003, and many courts are starting overturn same-sex marriage bans.
5. Same point as #4.
6. Not everyone follows the same religion.

There is no empirical evidence the founding fathers were smarter compared to today's generation. Plus, they didn't model this nation on Christian principles. Many of them were deists, fearing a mixture of religion and government.

2003....what the hell?
I thought they got rid of them even earlier....wow.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

Ah...at least we got them turned down. That's the most important thing. Plus, it was only for the states that still had sodomy laws in effect.

[Donut section]

I've heard people claim the American constitution was founded on the Christian religion.

It seems to me modern American Christianity was more founded on the constitution.

It does take much to notice the decidable corporatist flavor of American mega church's, as an example.

[Other Thafoo]

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/223978/ ... it-or-not/
[thafoo seal of approval]

[Grenartia]

The US is ever closer to having all 50 states recognize same-sex marriage.

We must begin preparations for the next developed country to work on. Italy, perhaps.

This thread, so the OP seems to say, is open for carefully-written debate. I will say that I disagree that all 50 states will accept same-sex or "gay" marriage.

1. There are states that have constitutional prohibitions on it. 2. Furthermore why should all states be forced to accept it? 3. That does not seem fair. 4. My state's constitution prohibits this sort of behavior outright.

5. I'm thinking about making an OP all about gay marriage in the United States.

6. Personally: against it, totally from a Biblical Christian standpoint. I don't hate "gay" people, 7. I do hate their lifestyle. 8. It is a Christian doctrine to love the sinner but hate the sin.

More info on this: http://www.gotquestions.org/love-sinner-hate-sin.html

By the way, if I'm not actually allowed to talk here and this is only for certain people, I apologize. Please let me know if this is the case.

1. Oppressive prohibitions that are blatantly against the Federal Constitution (you know, the SUPREME law of the land).

2. Because not accepting it is an oppressive, unjustified restriction of that state's same-sex couples' 9th amendment right to pursue happiness, and 14th amendment right to equal protection, as well as being sex-based discrimination, in addition to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

3. Is any of what I just mentioned fair to same-sex couples? Also, states being forced to accept it is hardly unfair. A state being forced to do its job, and follow the law is the complete OPPOSITE of unfair.

4. Then it is in violation of the US Constitution.

5. No. We already have a thread for that. THIS thread.

6. Not possible. Its such an integral part of us that hating it is hating us, just like I'd be guilty of hating black people if I claimed to "love the person, but hate the black skin".

7. Not a "lifestyle".

8. If you actually loved us, you'd be standing up for our equal rights, instead of continuing our oppression. Also, its not a sin.

When did the Supreme Court (I'm guessing) did that anyway?

They haven't, not yet and to be honest, I don't think they would if a case came their way. It would be another 5-4 split and a sanctimonious majority from Scalia about marriage and thinly-veiled "states' rights." Lower Federal courts have done so, though.

Indeed. And just a point of order, for those "states rights" people, states don't have rights, they have responsibilities. People have rights.

A ruling from the Federal bench that state constitutions with clauses prohibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional - out of line with the US Constitution - would invalidate those clauses (amendments). The national Constitution trumps state constitutions.

1. State constitutions have to be approved by Congress whenever they wish to adopt a new one, as far as I know. It is true that the national constitution trumps state constitutions. State constitutions and state laws, for that matter, have to be in accordance with the national constitution. 2. The problem: the national constitution does not provide for gay marriage. It is neither permitted nor denied. 3. Regardless, there is nothing unconstitutional about denying marriage to homosexual people.

Where in the Constitution does it provide for such a thing?

4. George Washington viewed sodomy (18th century word for homosexuality in general) with 'abhorrence and detestation'. 5. We should always try to base our laws off of the values made clear by our Founding Fathers.

Here's my source, by the way.

“Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose” [emphasis in the original].

(End quote)

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?a ... t(gw110081))

1. None of these amendments were part of the constitutions when the states joined, and even if they were, it wouldn't matter as to their unconstitutionality.

2. Not explicitly, but implicitly. 9th Amendment, 14th Amendment. Also, if something isn't explicitly prohibited, then it is implicitly permitted.

3. Allow me to quote the 9th and 14th amendments.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

Emphasis mine.

4. Yes? And? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and many of the other Founding Fathers owned slaves, despite stating in the Declaration of Independence that "All men are created equal...". The simple fact is, the Founding Fathers were ignorant of the facts we know today. Their views on various matters do not matter. And even if it did, their beliefs on those matters were based on ignorance, and they would most likely view these matters differently if they knew what we know now.

Hell, they even KNEW shit would change, necessitating changes to the law, which is why they explicitly included an amendment process in the Constitution.

5. It seems pretty fucking clear, based on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that they valued liberty and freedom, and utterly opposed government infringements on liberty and freedom, especially when things didn't infringe on others' rights without informed consent. And same sex marriage fits in there perfectly.

The Constitution does not have to mention something explicitly in order for that something to be constitutional, nor is it required that there be a direct prohibition of something. You're requiring the writers of the document to be clairvoyant. Federal and Supreme Court rulings are made on the spirit of the Constitution all the time. After all, where is health insurance or female contraception mentioned in the Constitution? How could the Court even take the Hobby Lobby case and decide that they had a First Amendment right to freedom of religion if health insurance or female contraception is nowhere mentioned?

As for George Washington's views on homosexuality, they're his personal opinion and so irrelevant. Besides, the people he was punishing had different views and they fought bravely to throw off the British yoke.

You're absolutely right. The problem is, there is no definite reason to declare that homosexuality is by any means a constitutional principle, or, in your own words, 'in the spirit of the Constitution'.

The personal opinions of the founding fathers, moreover, those of the main founding father and our first President, George Washington, are by all means relevant. I cannot believe you think you have the right to pontificate on which founding father's view is relevant or not. We should take the sound opinions of our founding fathers into consideration always whenever we make a law or do anything in the conducting of our government.

George Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers arguably feel like we shouldn't constantly be wondering what they'd think and legislate based off of that, but rather that we should be wondering what WE think, and legislate based off that.

We're not talking about homosexuality itself but the right of people who are homosexual to have the benefits and protections under the law that their heterosexual fellow citizens have, including the right to marry the person of their choice. George Washington probably didn't think women should vote or that slavery was necessarily a bad thing. He also thought, I imagine, that having your doctor draw a pint of your blood when you were sick was a good thing. Times change, people and nations evolve in their thoughts and actions. We should draw up our laws for the modern day and not wonder what George Washington would think.

Homosexuality, however, 1. is offensive in both God's sight, 2. George Washington's sight, 3. the sight of most Americans, 4. the sight of most state constitutions, the sight of most state laws, and 5. the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

6. The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. 7. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. 8. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

9. I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff. Unless of course, what they have to say agrees with "the modern day Internet pontiff" (whoever the fuck that is), and/or I disagree with it, at which point, I will promply disregard what they said and continue on as if the statement never existed, because I love mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty.

1. Questionable.

2. Not relevant.

3. Not true, and even if it were, it still wouldn't be relevant, as civil rights shouldn't be a popularity contest.

4. Allow me to quote some excellent songwriters:

"You say its in the Constitution
Well, you know
We all wanna change it BAD!"

5. Well, I doubt that, since most Americans are Christian, and most Americans don't find it offensive. Besides, it still wouldn't matter even if the statement was true, because this isn't a theocracy (and your intellectual dishonesty on that subject will NEVER change that fact), and Christians (or anybody of any faith) don't get to shove their beliefs down people's throats and don't get to enshrine them in law. Anybody who finds it offensive can simply not do it. But what they can't do is force others to follow their beliefs.

6. Maybe they were smarter and more intelligent than you, but I doubt they were smarter or more intelligent than literally everybody who came after them.

7. No, they did not. Stop being intellectually dishonest.

8. Not relevant at all.

9. Fixed that for you. And before you say anything, I've seen you do literally everything in green (and I can prove it), so you can't deny it without committing the sin of lying. Check, and mate.

No. We should take the sound principals of logic, what the constitution layer out, and what advisors and people that know stuff are saying. The founding fathers lived in the 1700's. Their time is passed. Time to move on.

In that case, the Constitution, written by these outdated gentlemen, ought to be abolished, and a new one, perhaps more politically correct and atheistic, ought to be made?

No need to, when we can simply change it, according to the process those outdated gentlemen had the wisdom to include in the document.

Alright, I will have none of this. I will not hear this bigoted, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-Founders nonsense.

You can have your opinions, I will have mine.

Oh, boy, a persecution complex!

Please, tell me more how my demanding equal rights using rhetoric based on American values, the Constitution, and defending the basic ideas of the Founding fathers is "bigoted, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-Founders nonsense". I mean, for fucks sakes, if anything fits that bill, its the bullshit you're spewing. Pot, meet kettle. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


Also, your opinions are objectively wrong.

But sure. Go ahead and run away because you've been proven wrong, and don't have the intellectual honesty and the guts to admit you're wrong and change your views accordingly.

[MERIZoC]

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/223978/bad-ass-colorado-county-clerk-to-issue-same-sex-marriage-certificates-whether-the-state-likes-it-or-not/
[thafoo seal of approval]

Good for her. It'd be great if this kind of thing caught on.

[Distruzio]

It is a Christian doctrine to love the sinner but hate the sin.

No. It most certainly is, the fuck, not.

This statement suggests that Christian doctrine applies to non-Christians. It doesn't. It applies to Christians. Christians are the sinners, NIPA. We are. Not some faceless "they". And we aren't called to love but hate. We're called to serve and forgive. As in serve our brothers and sisters and forgive ourselves as well as them for any transgression.

I just... gah.

[Distruzio]

It is a Christian doctrine to love the sinner but hate the sin.

No. It most certainly is, the fuck, not.

This statement suggests that Christian doctrine applies to non-Christians. It doesn't. It applies to Christians. Christians are the sinners, NIPA. We are. Not some faceless "they". And we aren't called to love but hate. We're called to serve and forgive. As in serve our brothers and sisters and forgive ourselves as well as them for any transgression.

I just... gah.

Please forgive my frustration a moment ago. I'll try again.

Okay... I'll give this a go:

<<deep breath>>

When we use Christian doctrines to apply our responsibilities to others, we paint a veneer of abstractness upon everyone else. They cease to be individuals. They become sinners. A faceless amorphous abstract concept that needs cleansing. We see the individuals, sure, but in stating that we "love the sinner but hate the sin" we, in essence, define that individual according to their failure to live up to our responsibilities as Christians. They are no longer an individual made in the image of God. They are a thing. An irresponsible thing.

The reality is that no matter what thin porous justifications a homophobe uses to substantiate his hatred, when it comes to religious justification, his arguments are never cast with Jesus in mind. His arguments are never cast with the Church in mind. His arguments are never cast with the tradition of the faith itself in mind. What the homophobe is doing is transcribing certain verses from a holy text in order to justify his suspicion that Jesus, the Church, and the faith have failed. Jesus destroyed the gates of hell so that no person might be condemned for all eternity again (should they choose that condemnation is another matter) and He arose again to permanently break the power that death holds on a person's soul (that power being the permanent separation of individual from God). Jesus charged the Church with a duty of seeking out the meek and those in need (the sick) and providing for them. In acting upon that charge, the Church has established herself as a hospital for the sick and weary (with many hiccups along the way) and sought to deliver unto the people the message of Christ - that we are each and everyone of us uniquely cherished and desired by the one true God and that His Grace will absolve us of any failings we might have so long as we trust and believe.

The Homophobe, in saying that he "loves the sinner but hates the sin" is saying that Jesus couldn't deliver the goods, that the Church is useless, and that there is no hope in Faith.

If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then there is no hope for redemption or salvation for either the individual so accused or the Christian pointing the finger. If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then death awaits both the sinner and the Christian. Jesus failed. The Church cannot help the sick. The Faith cannot point to God.

Of course, the homophobe will offer trite and unconvincing babble about how he knows he, too, is a sinner but... he only ever uses that thrice damned phrase, "love the sinner but hate the sin," to describe others - not himself. How condescending is that fucking statement? How irreverent and repulsive and utterly without humanity is that fucking statement?

<<breathe>>

Let us turn to Jesus to consider this... statement. Did Jesus suffer himself upon the prostitutes and the rest of the sinful of His city? Did he condescend to "hang out" with sinners? No. He didn't. Who did he associate with? People. Individuals. Those lovely in His sight. He associated with his friends and His most cherished companions. He didn't label a single one of them. Who did that? The religious authorities of the day. Those who felt threatened by His message, His charge, and His Church. It was they who labelled the "sinners" sinners.

That phrase... that fucking phrase is spoken with the sneer of a lickspittle who little understands his attested faith and would deign to chastise God Himself for daring to love the unlovable. That phrase.... that fucking phrase is spoken with the same tone I hear in my head when I read of Mary, the prostitute, who was thrown at Jesus feet. The religious authorities of the day asked him what was to be done with her - this thing on the dirt. What did Jesus see? What did He say? Did He take the ugly duckling under His arm and help her along her way? Did He acknowledge their challenge in the face of this... project prone before Him?

What did He do? He knelt in the dirt Himself. He dirtied Himself. He looked in her eyes. He refused to condemn her. He merely said, "go and sin no more."

He didn't condescend. He didn't dismiss her as a "sinner." He saw the woman. He cherished the woman. He didn't identify her as a sinner. He identified her as a human being. Something beautiful and wonderful and lovely. Covered in dirt. Stained by sin. But defined by the image of God in her. She was lovely.

Jesus died and rose again to redeem everyone. Not just the sinless. Even the homophobe who thinks so poorly of Him.

We are each created in the image of God before we sin. Therefore we are never defined by that sin.

There is no way in hell that it is possible to "love the sinner but hate the sin." To say that is to alienate yourself from Christ. To say that is to deny the humanity of gender and sexuality minorities everywhere. When the homophobe denies what makes them human he sins against himself. He paints himself, his ideology, his personhood as naught but a vapor.

Homosexuality is no sin. Hating sin, however, is.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No. It most certainly is, the fuck, not.

This statement suggests that Christian doctrine applies to non-Christians. It doesn't. It applies to Christians. Christians are the sinners, NIPA. We are. Not some faceless "they". And we aren't called to love but hate. We're called to serve and forgive. As in serve our brothers and sisters and forgive ourselves as well as them for any transgression.

I just... gah.

Please forgive my frustration a moment ago. I'll try again.

Okay... I'll give this a go:

<<deep breath>>

When we use Christian doctrines to apply our responsibilities to others, we paint a veneer of abstractness upon everyone else. They cease to be individuals. They become sinners. A faceless amorphous abstract concept that needs cleansing. We see the individuals, sure, but in stating that we "love the sinner but hate the sin" we, in essence, define that individual according to their failure to live up to our responsibilities as Christians. They are no longer an individual made in the image of God. They are a thing. An irresponsible thing.

The reality is that no matter what thin porous justifications a homophobe uses to substantiate his hatred, when it comes to religious justification, his arguments are never cast with Jesus in mind. His arguments are never cast with the Church in mind. His arguments are never cast with the tradition of the faith itself in mind. What the homophobe is doing is transcribing certain verses from a holy text in order to justify his suspicion that Jesus, the Church, and the faith have failed. Jesus destroyed the gates of hell so that no person might be condemned for all eternity again (should they choose that condemnation is another matter) and He arose again to permanently break the power that death holds on a person's soul (that power being the permanent separation of individual from God). Jesus charged the Church with a duty of seeking out the meek and those in need (the sick) and providing for them. In acting upon that charge, the Church has established herself as a hospital for the sick and weary (with many hiccups along the way) and sought to deliver unto the people the message of Christ - that we are each and everyone of us uniquely cherished and desired by the one true God and that His Grace will absolve us of any failings we might have so long as we trust and believe.

The Homophobe, in saying that he "loves the sinner but hates the sin" is saying that Jesus couldn't deliver the goods, that the Church is useless, and that there is no hope in Faith.

If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then there is no hope for redemption or salvation for either the individual so accused or the Christian pointing the finger. If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then death awaits both the sinner and the Christian. Jesus failed. The Church cannot help the sick. The Faith cannot point to God.

Of course, the homophobe will offer trite and unconvincing babble about how he knows he, too, is a sinner but... he only ever uses that thrice damned phrase, "love the sinner but hate the sin," to describe others - not himself. How condescending is that fucking statement? How irreverent and repulsive and utterly without humanity is that fucking statement?

<<breathe>>

Let us turn to Jesus to consider this... statement. Did Jesus suffer himself upon the prostitutes and the rest of the sinful of His city? Did he condescend to "hang out" with sinners? No. He didn't. Who did he associate with? People. Individuals. Those lovely in His sight. He associated with his friends and His most cherished companions. He didn't label a single one of them. Who did that? The religious authorities of the day. Those who felt threatened by His message, His charge, and His Church. It was they who labelled the "sinners" sinners.

That phrase... that fucking phrase is spoken with the sneer of a lickspittle who little understands his attested faith and would deign to chastise God Himself for daring to love the unlovable. That phrase.... that fucking phrase is spoken with the same tone I hear in my head when I read of Mary, the prostitute, who was thrown at Jesus feet. The religious authorities of the day asked him what was to be done with her - this thing on the dirt. What did Jesus see? What did He say? Did He take the ugly duckling under His arm and help her along her way? Did He acknowledge their challenge in the face of this... project prone before Him?

What did He do? He knelt in the dirt Himself. He dirtied Himself. He looked in her eyes. He refused to condemn her. He merely said, "go and sin no more."

He didn't condescend. He didn't dismiss her as a "sinner." He saw the woman. He cherished the woman. He didn't identify her as a sinner. He identified her as a human being. Something beautiful and wonderful and lovely. Covered in dirt. Stained by sin. But defined by the image of God in her. She was lovely.

Jesus died and rose again to redeem everyone. Not just the sinless. Even the homophobe who thinks so poorly of Him.

We are each created in the image of God before we sin. Therefore we are never defined by that sin.

There is no way in hell that it is possible to "love the sinner but hate the sin." To say that is to alienate yourself from Christ. To say that is to deny the humanity of gender and sexuality minorities everywhere. When the homophobe denies what makes them human he sins against himself. He paints himself, his ideology, his personhood as naught but a vapor.

Homosexuality is no sin. Hating sin, however, is.

Wow, this. I totally am sending this to the AQ thread. It was an amazing crystallization of what's wrong with a single phrase.

[UED]

Alright, I will have none of this. I will not hear this bigoted, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-Founders nonsense.

You can have your opinions, I will have mine.

Umm, I don't think its anti-American to support LBGT rights.
Not sure on constitution
Well, the founding fathers were from over 200 years ago. Times change mate, the saying "out with the old, in with the new" has defined human history.

[Distruzio]

Please forgive my frustration a moment ago. I'll try again.

Okay... I'll give this a go:

<<deep breath>>

When we use Christian doctrines to apply our responsibilities to others, we paint a veneer of abstractness upon everyone else. They cease to be individuals. They become sinners. A faceless amorphous abstract concept that needs cleansing. We see the individuals, sure, but in stating that we "love the sinner but hate the sin" we, in essence, define that individual according to their failure to live up to our responsibilities as Christians. They are no longer an individual made in the image of God. They are a thing. An irresponsible thing.

The reality is that no matter what thin porous justifications a homophobe uses to substantiate his hatred, when it comes to religious justification, his arguments are never cast with Jesus in mind. His arguments are never cast with the Church in mind. His arguments are never cast with the tradition of the faith itself in mind. What the homophobe is doing is transcribing certain verses from a holy text in order to justify his suspicion that Jesus, the Church, and the faith have failed. Jesus destroyed the gates of hell so that no person might be condemned for all eternity again (should they choose that condemnation is another matter) and He arose again to permanently break the power that death holds on a person's soul (that power being the permanent separation of individual from God). Jesus charged the Church with a duty of seeking out the meek and those in need (the sick) and providing for them. In acting upon that charge, the Church has established herself as a hospital for the sick and weary (with many hiccups along the way) and sought to deliver unto the people the message of Christ - that we are each and everyone of us uniquely cherished and desired by the one true God and that His Grace will absolve us of any failings we might have so long as we trust and believe.

The Homophobe, in saying that he "loves the sinner but hates the sin" is saying that Jesus couldn't deliver the goods, that the Church is useless, and that there is no hope in Faith.

If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then there is no hope for redemption or salvation for either the individual so accused or the Christian pointing the finger. If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then death awaits both the sinner and the Christian. Jesus failed. The Church cannot help the sick. The Faith cannot point to God.

Of course, the homophobe will offer trite and unconvincing babble about how he knows he, too, is a sinner but... he only ever uses that thrice damned phrase, "love the sinner but hate the sin," to describe others - not himself. How condescending is that fucking statement? How irreverent and repulsive and utterly without humanity is that fucking statement?

<<breathe>>

Let us turn to Jesus to consider this... statement. Did Jesus suffer himself upon the prostitutes and the rest of the sinful of His city? Did he condescend to "hang out" with sinners? No. He didn't. Who did he associate with? People. Individuals. Those lovely in His sight. He associated with his friends and His most cherished companions. He didn't label a single one of them. Who did that? The religious authorities of the day. Those who felt threatened by His message, His charge, and His Church. It was they who labelled the "sinners" sinners.

That phrase... that fucking phrase is spoken with the sneer of a lickspittle who little understands his attested faith and would deign to chastise God Himself for daring to love the unlovable. That phrase.... that fucking phrase is spoken with the same tone I hear in my head when I read of Mary, the prostitute, who was thrown at Jesus feet. The religious authorities of the day asked him what was to be done with her - this thing on the dirt. What did Jesus see? What did He say? Did He take the ugly duckling under His arm and help her along her way? Did He acknowledge their challenge in the face of this... project prone before Him?

What did He do? He knelt in the dirt Himself. He dirtied Himself. He looked in her eyes. He refused to condemn her. He merely said, "go and sin no more."

He didn't condescend. He didn't dismiss her as a "sinner." He saw the woman. He cherished the woman. He didn't identify her as a sinner. He identified her as a human being. Something beautiful and wonderful and lovely. Covered in dirt. Stained by sin. But defined by the image of God in her. She was lovely.

Jesus died and rose again to redeem everyone. Not just the sinless. Even the homophobe who thinks so poorly of Him.

We are each created in the image of God before we sin. Therefore we are never defined by that sin.

There is no way in hell that it is possible to "love the sinner but hate the sin." To say that is to alienate yourself from Christ. To say that is to deny the humanity of gender and sexuality minorities everywhere. When the homophobe denies what makes them human he sins against himself. He paints himself, his ideology, his personhood as naught but a vapor.

Homosexuality is no sin. Hating sin, however, is.

Wow, this. I totally am sending this to the AQ thread. It was an amazing crystallization of what's wrong with a single phrase.

Thank you sir. Amazing what can pour out of you in a rage.

[Neema]

No. It most certainly is, the fuck, not.

This statement suggests that Christian doctrine applies to non-Christians. It doesn't. It applies to Christians. Christians are the sinners, NIPA. We are. Not some faceless "they". And we aren't called to love but hate. We're called to serve and forgive. As in serve our brothers and sisters and forgive ourselves as well as them for any transgression.

I just... gah.

Please forgive my frustration a moment ago. I'll try again.

Okay... I'll give this a go:

<<deep breath>>

When we use Christian doctrines to apply our responsibilities to others, we paint a veneer of abstractness upon everyone else. They cease to be individuals. They become sinners. A faceless amorphous abstract concept that needs cleansing. We see the individuals, sure, but in stating that we "love the sinner but hate the sin" we, in essence, define that individual according to their failure to live up to our responsibilities as Christians. They are no longer an individual made in the image of God. They are a thing. An irresponsible thing.

The reality is that no matter what thin porous justifications a homophobe uses to substantiate his hatred, when it comes to religious justification, his arguments are never cast with Jesus in mind. His arguments are never cast with the Church in mind. His arguments are never cast with the tradition of the faith itself in mind. What the homophobe is doing is transcribing certain verses from a holy text in order to justify his suspicion that Jesus, the Church, and the faith have failed. Jesus destroyed the gates of hell so that no person might be condemned for all eternity again (should they choose that condemnation is another matter) and He arose again to permanently break the power that death holds on a person's soul (that power being the permanent separation of individual from God). Jesus charged the Church with a duty of seeking out the meek and those in need (the sick) and providing for them. In acting upon that charge, the Church has established herself as a hospital for the sick and weary (with many hiccups along the way) and sought to deliver unto the people the message of Christ - that we are each and everyone of us uniquely cherished and desired by the one true God and that His Grace will absolve us of any failings we might have so long as we trust and believe.

The Homophobe, in saying that he "loves the sinner but hates the sin" is saying that Jesus couldn't deliver the goods, that the Church is useless, and that there is no hope in Faith.

If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then there is no hope for redemption or salvation for either the individual so accused or the Christian pointing the finger. If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then death awaits both the sinner and the Christian. Jesus failed. The Church cannot help the sick. The Faith cannot point to God.

Of course, the homophobe will offer trite and unconvincing babble about how he knows he, too, is a sinner but... he only ever uses that thrice damned phrase, "love the sinner but hate the sin," to describe others - not himself. How condescending is that fucking statement? How irreverent and repulsive and utterly without humanity is that fucking statement?

<<breathe>>

Let us turn to Jesus to consider this... statement. Did Jesus suffer himself upon the prostitutes and the rest of the sinful of His city? Did he condescend to "hang out" with sinners? No. He didn't. Who did he associate with? People. Individuals. Those lovely in His sight. He associated with his friends and His most cherished companions. He didn't label a single one of them. Who did that? The religious authorities of the day. Those who felt threatened by His message, His charge, and His Church. It was they who labelled the "sinners" sinners.

That phrase... that fucking phrase is spoken with the sneer of a lickspittle who little understands his attested faith and would deign to chastise God Himself for daring to love the unlovable. That phrase.... that fucking phrase is spoken with the same tone I hear in my head when I read of Mary, the prostitute, who was thrown at Jesus feet. The religious authorities of the day asked him what was to be done with her - this thing on the dirt. What did Jesus see? What did He say? Did He take the ugly duckling under His arm and help her along her way? Did He acknowledge their challenge in the face of this... project prone before Him?

What did He do? He knelt in the dirt Himself. He dirtied Himself. He looked in her eyes. He refused to condemn her. He merely said, "go and sin no more."

He didn't condescend. He didn't dismiss her as a "sinner." He saw the woman. He cherished the woman. He didn't identify her as a sinner. He identified her as a human being. Something beautiful and wonderful and lovely. Covered in dirt. Stained by sin. But defined by the image of God in her. She was lovely.

Jesus died and rose again to redeem everyone. Not just the sinless. Even the homophobe who thinks so poorly of Him.

We are each created in the image of God before we sin. Therefore we are never defined by that sin.

There is no way in hell that it is possible to "love the sinner but hate the sin." To say that is to alienate yourself from Christ. To say that is to deny the humanity of gender and sexuality minorities everywhere. When the homophobe denies what makes them human he sins against himself. He paints himself, his ideology, his personhood as naught but a vapor.

Homosexuality is no sin. Hating sin, however, is.

Sigged, if that's okay.

[Other Thafoo]

Umm, I don't think its anti-American to support LBGT rights.
Not sure on constitution

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-Amendment Fourteen

[UED]

Umm, I don't think its anti-American to support LBGT rights.
Not sure on constitution

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-Amendment Fourteen

Hooray

[Distruzio]

Please forgive my frustration a moment ago. I'll try again.

Okay... I'll give this a go:

<<deep breath>>

When we use Christian doctrines to apply our responsibilities to others, we paint a veneer of abstractness upon everyone else. They cease to be individuals. They become sinners. A faceless amorphous abstract concept that needs cleansing. We see the individuals, sure, but in stating that we "love the sinner but hate the sin" we, in essence, define that individual according to their failure to live up to our responsibilities as Christians. They are no longer an individual made in the image of God. They are a thing. An irresponsible thing.

The reality is that no matter what thin porous justifications a homophobe uses to substantiate his hatred, when it comes to religious justification, his arguments are never cast with Jesus in mind. His arguments are never cast with the Church in mind. His arguments are never cast with the tradition of the faith itself in mind. What the homophobe is doing is transcribing certain verses from a holy text in order to justify his suspicion that Jesus, the Church, and the faith have failed. Jesus destroyed the gates of hell so that no person might be condemned for all eternity again (should they choose that condemnation is another matter) and He arose again to permanently break the power that death holds on a person's soul (that power being the permanent separation of individual from God). Jesus charged the Church with a duty of seeking out the meek and those in need (the sick) and providing for them. In acting upon that charge, the Church has established herself as a hospital for the sick and weary (with many hiccups along the way) and sought to deliver unto the people the message of Christ - that we are each and everyone of us uniquely cherished and desired by the one true God and that His Grace will absolve us of any failings we might have so long as we trust and believe.

The Homophobe, in saying that he "loves the sinner but hates the sin" is saying that Jesus couldn't deliver the goods, that the Church is useless, and that there is no hope in Faith.

If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then there is no hope for redemption or salvation for either the individual so accused or the Christian pointing the finger. If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then death awaits both the sinner and the Christian. Jesus failed. The Church cannot help the sick. The Faith cannot point to God.

Of course, the homophobe will offer trite and unconvincing babble about how he knows he, too, is a sinner but... he only ever uses that thrice damned phrase, "love the sinner but hate the sin," to describe others - not himself. How condescending is that fucking statement? How irreverent and repulsive and utterly without humanity is that fucking statement?

<<breathe>>

Let us turn to Jesus to consider this... statement. Did Jesus suffer himself upon the prostitutes and the rest of the sinful of His city? Did he condescend to "hang out" with sinners? No. He didn't. Who did he associate with? People. Individuals. Those lovely in His sight. He associated with his friends and His most cherished companions. He didn't label a single one of them. Who did that? The religious authorities of the day. Those who felt threatened by His message, His charge, and His Church. It was they who labelled the "sinners" sinners.

That phrase... that fucking phrase is spoken with the sneer of a lickspittle who little understands his attested faith and would deign to chastise God Himself for daring to love the unlovable. That phrase.... that fucking phrase is spoken with the same tone I hear in my head when I read of Mary, the prostitute, who was thrown at Jesus feet. The religious authorities of the day asked him what was to be done with her - this thing on the dirt. What did Jesus see? What did He say? Did He take the ugly duckling under His arm and help her along her way? Did He acknowledge their challenge in the face of this... project prone before Him?

What did He do? He knelt in the dirt Himself. He dirtied Himself. He looked in her eyes. He refused to condemn her. He merely said, "go and sin no more."

He didn't condescend. He didn't dismiss her as a "sinner." He saw the woman. He cherished the woman. He didn't identify her as a sinner. He identified her as a human being. Something beautiful and wonderful and lovely. Covered in dirt. Stained by sin. But defined by the image of God in her. She was lovely.

Jesus died and rose again to redeem everyone. Not just the sinless. Even the homophobe who thinks so poorly of Him.

We are each created in the image of God before we sin. Therefore we are never defined by that sin.

There is no way in hell that it is possible to "love the sinner but hate the sin." To say that is to alienate yourself from Christ. To say that is to deny the humanity of gender and sexuality minorities everywhere. When the homophobe denies what makes them human he sins against himself. He paints himself, his ideology, his personhood as naught but a vapor.

Homosexuality is no sin. Hating sin, however, is.

Sigged, if that's okay.

Of course, thank you for the compliment.

[Neema]

Sigged, if that's okay.

Of course, thank you for the compliment.

You're welcome.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

We're not talking about homosexuality itself but the right of people who are homosexual to have the benefits and protections under the law that their heterosexual fellow citizens have, including the right to marry the person of their choice. George Washington probably didn't think women should vote or that slavery was necessarily a bad thing. He also thought, I imagine, that having your doctor draw a pint of your blood when you were sick was a good thing. Times change, people and nations evolve in their thoughts and actions. We should draw up our laws for the modern day and not wonder what George Washington would think.

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both God's sight, George Washington's sight, the sight of most Americans, the sight of most state constitutions, the sight of most state laws, and the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff.

Man, I can't laugh at this anymore, its not even funny now...

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Alright, I will have none of this. I will not hear this bigoted, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-Founders nonsense.

You can have your opinions, I will have mine.

Look in a mirror pal...

[Kiruri]

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both God's sight, George Washington's sight, the sight of most Americans, the sight of most state constitutions, the sight of most state laws, and the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff.

Man, I can't laugh at this anymore, its not even funny now...

I knew there was a reason I seldom showed my face in this thread ^^

¬¬